President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, March 23, 2010, is similar to President Fillmore’s Fugitive Slave Act, Sept. 18, 1850. The Supreme Court’s health-care decision, June 27, 2012, is similar to its Dred Scott decision, March 6, 1857.

Is a civil war next?

Preceding the Civil War, there were two major political parties in America: the Democratic Party, which was pro-slavery, and the Whig Party, which could not decide if it was for or against slavery, attempting to be an all-inclusive, big-tent party.

The Whigs dissolved, being replaced by a third party that took a stand on social issues, namely, the Republican Party. The chief plank in the original Republican Party platform, June 1856, defended traditional marriage and the value of human life, intending to “prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism: polygamy and slavery.”

America was divided geographically between:

Radical Republican North – which said slavery is wrong, end it now. This included abolitionist societies, the Underground Railroad, anti-slavery preachers and, unfortunately, the fringe John Brown who took guns and killed slave owners.

Moderate Republican North, which said slavery is wrong, but the country should transition out of it slowly over time.

Practical Neutral, which cared less about the value of human life, being more interested in jobs, wages, economy and tax-tariff issues.

Moderate Democratic South, which said slavery may be wrong, but the country has to live with it. Though personally against slavery, they believed the right to own slaves should be protected, just made rare and few, and treat slaves humanely.

Extreme Democratic South, which said slavery is good and should be expanded into Western states. They tried to justify it by twisting Scriptures, citing that Abraham owned slaves but ignoring Jesus’ teaching to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Extreme Democrats Speaker Howell Cobb and Senate President William King pushed through the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which put the slavery issue squarely in the face of the anti-slavery North, whereas before it had become an out-of-sight and out-of-mind issue occurring on Southern plantations.

The Fugitive Slave Law imposed severe penalties on those who aided escaped slaves with food or shelter in their passage to freedom in Michigan or Canada. It also made it a crime to interfere with the slave catchers’ recovery of runaway slaves. A person could be held criminally liable, fined $1000 and imprisoned for six months if they failed to report a neighbor suspected of helping slaves.

The Fugitive Slave Law mandate intensified sectional animosity, provoking the Civil War by requiring citizens who are against slavery to violate their consciences and take part in it.

It was one thing for Northerners to be apathetic toward pro-choice Democrats enslaving people in the South, but it was quite another thing for them to be forced by a federal mandate to dip their hands in the blood of the crime and participate in enforcing slavery.

Congress made the situation worse in 1854 by passing Democratic Sen. Stephen Douglas’ Kansas-Nebraska Bill, which let inhabitants in the territories have the freedom of choice to decide if they wanted to own slaves.

It prescribed “dividing the land into two territories, Kansas and Nebraska, and leaving the question of slavery to be decided by the settlers.” Instead of gradually diminishing, as many founders had hoped, slavery was now expanding.

On March 6. 1857, the Supreme Court, with seven of the nine justices being Democrats, rendered the Dred Scott decision. Hoping to settle the slavery issue once and for all, their efforts to avoid a civil war began one.

Dred Scott was a slave who had been taken by his master to Illinois and Wisconsin, but, as he was not allowed to learn to read, he was unaware that those territories forbade slavery. When he returned to Missouri, Scott sued for freedom with the help of abolitionist friends, such as Henry Blow, a Republican congressman whose wife started the first kindergarten in the United States.

Supreme Court Chief Justice, Roger Taney, appointed by Democrat President Jackson, rendered the decision that Dred Scott was not a citizen, but property that belonged to his owner, writing that slaves were “so far inferior … that the Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for their own benefit.”

Leaders rose up in churches, media and politics. Lincoln said, March 17, 1865:

“Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.”

Some states defied the federal government’s Fugitive Slave Law mandate by passing “personal liberty laws,” effectively nullifying it. Communities insisted on jury trials before alleged fugitive slaves could be taken away by federal authorities. Some juries refused to convict those indicted. Other communities forbade local law enforcement officials from using their jails to hold the accused.

To settled the legality of President Lincoln’s Proclamation, the 13th Amendment was passed officially ending slavery. Every Republican in the House (86) and Senate (30) voted for it, joined by a few Democrats in the Senate (4) and House (15).

Today, there are two major political parties in America: the Democratic Party, which favors gay marriage and abortion, and the Republican Party, which predominantly protects traditional marriage and unborn humans, though some want to it go the way of the “Whigs” as an amoral, big-tent party.

Moderate Republicans, who say abortion is wrong, but the country should transition out of it slowly over time.

Practical Neutral, who care little about the value of human life, being more interested in jobs, wages and tax issues, or as Bill Clinton said, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Moderate Democrats, who say abortion may be wrong, but the country needs to live with it. Though personally against abortion, they believed the right to abort one’s child should be protected, just made rare and safe.

Extreme Democrats, who say abortion is good and should be expanded, not just nationally, but globally through U.S. foreign policy. They impose criminal penalties on those interfering with the abortionists trade by passing the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.

Extreme Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi “deemed passed” the President’s health-care law in 2010, “so we can find out what’s in it,” and Senate Democrats changed the rules to prevent it from being filibustered.

President Obama promised in Executive Order 13535, March 24, 2010, that the new law would not include abortion and protect an individual’s right of conscience, but it soon became apparent this was a political tactic to get House Democrats to vote for it.

Once passed, the president called New York Archbishop, now Cardinal, Timothy Dolan, Jan. 20, 2012, to inform him that he was breaking his promise, as Machiavelli counseled in 1513: “The promise given was a necessity of the past; the word broken is a necessity of the present. … A prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise.”

Similar to the Fugitive Slave Law, the president’s health-care law is intensifying animosity and almost intentionally provoking an ideological civil war – as Castro explained, “The revolution needs the antithesis.”

It has put the abortion issue squarely in the face of the moral “North,” whereas before abortion had become an ignored issue, occurring out-of-sight and out-of-mind in low-profile clinics.

Details of the health-care mandate were not specified when it was passed, but left up to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who is now requiring religious organizations, such as the Catholic Church – the largest health-care provider in the United States – to violate their consciences and finance directly, or indirectly through insurance premiums, contraceptives and abortifacients, with the expectation of abortion soon to follow.

President Obama’s health-care law imposes severe penalties on those who refuse to buy mandated coverage. It requires citizens who are against abortion to violate their consciences and take part in it.

Just as with the Fugitive Slave Law, it was one thing for apathetic anti-slavery Northerners to allow pro-slavery Democrats to enslave people in the South, but quite another thing to be forced by a federal fugitive slave mandate to participate in enforcing slavery. So today, it is one thing for apathetic anti-abortion citizens to allow pro-choice Democrats to abort the unborn, but quite another thing for them to be forced by a federal health-care mandate to dip their hands in the blood of the crime and participate in paying for abortions.

Fire is not content with ashes but desires to consume more. Those advocating abortion are not content with it being legal; they want to force those opposing it to pay for it.

Democrat Sen. Douglas’ pro-choice 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act regarding slavery is similar to today’s Democrat pro-choice agenda regarding abortion, which ignores the Preamble to the Constitution, which, as Ambassador Alan Keyes pointed out, refers to the unborn in the phrase: “To secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY.” If “posterity” means “offspring to the furthest generation,” it certainly means offspring of the next generation – the child in the womb.

Before the Civil War, a person born two inches over the border in Illinois was a U.S. citizen with unalienable rights; but two inches over the border in Missouri, he was property. Today, if a baby is two inches outside the womb, he is a U.S. citizen with unalienable rights; but two inches inside the womb he is property.

As Democrats broke precedent by changing Senate rules to pass Obamacare, precedent was broken with Justice Elena Kagan foregoing impartiality by not recusing herself, as she had been previously involved in defending Obamacare as the president’s solicitor general.

As with the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court’s Roe v Wade and now the Obamacare decision, instead of settling an issue, it has started a war.

What is at stake is whether “all men” are equal, “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life,” regardless if they live in the North or South, on someone’s plantation or in someone’s womb, many years old or few seconds young.

Many politicians today avoid the abortion issue as it might jeopardize their careers, but other leaders in churches, media and politics are taking a stand against the federal health-care mandate the same way past leaders stood against the Fugitive Slave Law mandate.

Dr. James Dobson stated:

“This assault on the sanctity of human life takes me where I cannot go. I WILL NOT pay the surcharge for abortion services. … To pay one cent for the killing of babies is egregious to me. … The Creator will not hold us guiltless if we turn a deaf ear to the cries of His innocent babies. So come and get me if you must, Mr. President. I will not bow before your wicked regulation.”

St. Louis Archbishop Robert Carlson stated to thousands gathered in the Rotunda of the Missouri State Capitol, March 27, 2012:

“We will render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, but we will NEVER render unto Caesar what belongs to Almighty God! … Mr. President, we cannot comply with this Mandate. … Mr President: restore our religious freedom!”

Franciscan University President, Father Terence Henry, stated:

“Every single American bishop has condemned this unjust mandate as an unconscionable violation of religious liberty. If allowed to stand, it will coerce Christians into cooperating with acts that violate core tenets of our faith.”

The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America wrote:

“Most troubling, is the administration … view that if a religious entity is not insular, but engaged with broader society, it loses its ‘religious’ character and liberties.”

The U.S. Catholic Bishops posted on their website:

“This is not a Catholic issue. This is not a Jewish issue. This is not an Orthodox, Mormon, or Muslim issue. It is an American issue.”

Martin Niemoeller, who spent seven years in concentration camps, wrote of the National Socialist Workers Party (Nazi Party):

“In Germany … they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

A frightening future awaits a nation whose government abandons the belief that every human being is endowed by a Creator with a “right to life.” It is at our peril we forget the millions killed by utilitarian governments.

President Ronald Reagan wrote in The Human Life Review, 1983:

“Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion.”